Appeal No. 2003-1119
Application 09/756,588
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
above-noted rejections will be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Looking first to the rejection of claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Meengs, we note that
independent claim 1 is directed to a sock comprising an inner
cuff; and foldable outer cuff. As noted by the examiner in both
the final rejection and the examiner’s answer, Meengs discloses a
sock (1) comprising a foot portion (2) and a leg portion (3),
wherein the leg portion includes an inner cuff (4) and an outer
cuff or guard sleeve (5). As can be seen in Figure 2 of Meengs
the inner cuff (4) is held against the wearer’s leg and operates
in the manner of a conventional sock, while the outer cuff or
guard sleeve (5) is adapted to be folded down over the top of the
wearer’s boot and boot laces.
In the brief (pages 4-5), while appellant has mentioned
dependent claim 3, we note that appellant has made no argument or
comment directed specifically to independent claim 1 or dependent
claims 2 and 4. Since appellant has made no argument regarding
the examiner’s position with respect to independent claim 1, and
since we agree with the examiner’s assessment that claim 1 is
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007